Citation Nr: 21029520 Decision Date: 05/13/21 Archive Date: 05/13/21 DOCKET NO. 14-12 506 DATE: May 13, 2021 ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to May 8, 2019 and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for right foot plantar fasciitis. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis prior to February 13, 2019 is denied. Entitlement to a 20 percent disability rating, but no higher, for right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis is granted for the period from February 13, 2019 to May 8, 2019. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis from May 8, 2019 is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For the period prior to February 13, 2019, the Veteran's right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis was manifested by pain on the use of both feet. It did not manifest in severe symptoms, and it did not result in any marked deformity, pain on manipulation and use accentuated, indication of swelling on use, or characteristic callosities. 2. For the period from February 13, 2019, the Veteran's right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis was manifested by pain on use accentuated; pain accentuated on manipulation; the Veteran's right foot (unilateral) plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis is not manifested by marked deformity of his foot, marked pronation, extreme tenderness, or severe spasm of the tendo achillis on manipulation CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis prior to February 13, 2019 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.14, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5276. 2. For the period from February 13, 2019 to May 8, 2019, the criteria for a disability rating of 20 percent, but no higher, for right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.14, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71, 4.71a, DC 5276. 3. For the period from May 8, 2019, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.14, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71, 4.71a, DC 5276. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1975 to June 1977. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2012 rating decision. By way of background, this matter was previously before the Board in January 2018 and January 2021. In January 2018, the Board remanded the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for right foot plantar fasciitis for further development, which included affording the Veteran a VA examination to assess the current severity of his right foot plantar fasciitis. In a July 2020 rating decision, the Veteran's rating for right foot plantar fasciitis was increased from 10 percent to 20 percent, effective May 8, 2019 (the date of a VA Foot Conditions examination). However, the claim remains on appeal, as this increase represents only a partial grant. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). In January 2021, the Board remanded this matter for the RO to consider additional evidence associated with the Veteran's claim's file subsequent to the issuance of a July 2020 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). This evidence included a September 2020 VA Foot Conditions examination. This relevant evidence had not been considered by the AOJ and no waiver of initial AOJ consideration of this evidence has been received. See38C.F.R. §20.1305 (c). In February 2021, the RO issued a SSOC and continued the currently assigned ratings. See February 17, 2021, SSOC. Additionally, the Board inferred the Veteran's claim for a TDIU remanded the claim for further development. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). While there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives, as will discussed in further detail below, the Board finds that further development is warranted for the Veteran's TDIU claim. The Board will begin its discussion and analysis with the Veteran's increased rating claim for right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis, examining whether (1) a rating in excess of 10 percent is warranted for the period prior to May 8, 2019, and (2) whether a rating in excess of 20 percent is warranted for the period from May 8, 2019 and thereafter. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Disability Ratings Disability ratings are determined by the application of the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2018). The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during service and their residual conditions in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 (a), 4.1 (2018). It is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified. Findings sufficient characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom are sufficient; and above all, a coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2018). Where there is a question as to which of two ratings shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2018). The rating of the same disability under various diagnoses is to be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (2018). However, that does not preclude the assignment of separate ratings for separate and distinct symptomatology where none of the symptomatology justifying a rating under one diagnostic code is duplicative of or overlapping with the symptomatology justifying a rating under another diagnostic code. Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259 (1994). In all claims for an increased disability rating, VA has a duty to consider the possibility of assigning staged ratings. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Where the evidence contains factual findings that demonstrate distinct time periods in which the service-connected disability exhibited diverse symptoms meeting the criteria for different ratings during the course of the appeal, the assignment of staged ratings is necessary. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis prior to May 8, 2019, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to a higher disability rating for his right foot plantar fasciitis. See May 11, 2020 VA-21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim). The Veteran's right foot disability has been rated under DC 5276 as acquired flatfoot. As referenced in the introduction of this decision, he has been assigned a 10 percent rating prior to May 8, 2019, and a 20 percent rating thereafter. The Veteran's increased rating claim was received on December 9, 2011, therefore the appeal period before the Board begins on December 9, 2011, the date VA received the Veteran's claim for increased ratings, plus the one-year look-back period. Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under DC 5276, a 10 percent rating is warranted for moderate flatfoot, where the weight-bearing line is over or medial to the great toe; there is inward bowing of the tendo achilles; there is pain on manipulation and use of the feet, either unilateral or bilateral. A 20 percent rating is warranted for unilateral severe flatfoot, and a 30 percent rating is warranted for bilateral severe flatfoot, where there is objective evidence of marked deformity (pronation, abduction, etc.); pain on manipulation and use accentuated; indication of swelling on use; characteristic callosities. The highest, rating of 50 percent is for bilateral pronounced flatfoot and 30 percent for unilateral pronounced flatfoot with marked pronation, extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces, marked inward displacement and severe spams of the tendo Achilles on manipulation, not improved by orthopedic shoes or appliances. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5276. Words such as "moderate" and "severe" are not defined in the Rating Schedule. Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must evaluate all of the evidence to the end that its decisions are equitable and just. 38 C.F.R. § 4.6. Although the use of similar terminology by medical professionals should be considered, it is not dispositive of an issue. Rather, all evidence must be evaluated in arriving at a decision regarding a request for an increased disability rating. 38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.6. The intent of the Rating Schedule is to recognize actually painful, unstable or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, as entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint, even in the absence of arthritis, to include in situations where the disability at issue is not evaluated based on range of motion measurements. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59; Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2011); Southall-Norman v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 346 (2016). Where functional loss is alleged due to pain upon motion, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 and § 4.45 must be considered. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 207-08 (1995). Within this context, a finding of functional loss due to pain must be supported by adequate pathology, and evidenced by the visible behavior of the claimant. Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80, 85 (1997). Pain itself does not rise to the level of functional loss as contemplated by § 4.40 and § 4.45, but may result in functional loss only if it limits the ability to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, coordination or endurance. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 43 (2011). A claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The analysis in the following decision is therefore undertaken with consideration of the possibility that different "staged" ratings may be warranted for different time periods. Where the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial evaluation assigned after the granting of service connection, separate ratings may also be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, i.e. "staged" ratings. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). The Board has reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran's claim file, but will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claim file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Discussion During the course of this appeal, the Veteran has been afforded VA examinations in January 2012, February 2019, May 2019, July 2019 and August 2020. March 2012 treatment records show the Veteran with diagnosis for pes planus and consultation for leather foot orthotics. See March 26, 2012 Orthotics Prosthetics Consult. October 2012 treatment records show the Veteran with complaints of right foot pain. See October 14, 2012 Emergency Department Triage Note. In his January 2012 VA Foot Condition's examination, the examiner reported the Veteran's diagnosis as plantar fasciitis, mild. The January 2012 examiner recorded that the Veteran complained of left foot pain related to compensating for right foot pain. The examiner recorded that severity of the right foot was moderate. See January 28, 2012 VA examination, pgs. 1-6. The Board observes however, the examiner did not document any of the Veteran's right foot complaints or note any other findings, to include upon physical examination. Hence, the Board finds that this examination inadequate in determining the severity of this Veteran's right foot disability. A September 2014 VA treatment report documents the Veteran's complaints of pain in his right arch. Upon physical examination, the VA treatment provider found excessive foot pronation, abducted gait, and heel eversion. Additionally, the VA treatment provider indicated that mild lateral deviation of hallux with non-painful, limited ranges of motion of the toe. There was minimal inflammation at the bunion site. The VA treatment provider recorded in the assessment: onychomycosis, onychauxis, pes planus, hallux valgus/rigidus, and hammertoes. See September 2, 2014 VA treatment record (Podiatry Consult). Pursuant to the Board January 2018 Remand Directives, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination (s) in February 2019, May 2019, July 2019. The Veteran was afforded an additional examination in September 2020. In this February 2019 Foot Conditions examination, the Veteran the diagnoses of plantar fasciitis of the right foot was confirmed. On medical history, the examiner recorded that the course of the Veteran's condition since onset was progressive. The examiner recorded the Veteran's description of pain: pain of the right foot with motions. See February 13, 2019 VA Foot Conditions examination, pgs., 1-4. Flare-ups did not impact the function of the feet. Addressing functional loss or impairment, the examiner recorded that the Veteran reports that he cannot stand/walk for long. Id. The February 2019 VA examiner found pain on the use of the right foot. There was pain accentuated on use. There was no pain on manipulation of the feet. The examiner recorded that there was no indication of swelling on use, or characteristic callosities. Id. The examiner did not record whether the Veteran is currently using arch supports, built up shoes or orthotics, effecting relief of symptoms. Id. The examiner recorded that the Veteran does have extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces on one or both feet (right foot). The examiner reported that tenderness was not improved by orthopedic shoes or appliances. Id. at 5. The Veteran did not have decreased longitudinal arch height of use of one or both feet on weight-bearing. There was no objective evidence of marked pronation or marked deformity of one or both feet. Id. The weight-bearing line did not fall over or medial to the great toe. There was no lower extremity deformity other than pes planus causing alteration of the weight bearing line. There was no "inward" bowing of the Achilles' tendon (i.e., hindfoot valgus, with lateral deviation of the heel) of one or both feet. The Veteran did not have marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the Achilles' tendon (rigid hindfoot) on manipulation of one or both feet. Id. The examiner reported that there was no pain on physical examination. The examiner recorded the Veteran's report of painful right foot with motions. Id. at 9. The examiner recorded that the function loss for the right lower extremity was less movement than normal. (due to ankylosis, limitation or blocking, adhesions, tendon-tie-ups, contracted scars, etc.) Additional factors contributing to disability included less movement than normal, disturbance of locomotion, and interference with standing. Id. at 9-10. The examiner recorded that the Veteran does not use an assistive device for locomotion. Id. at 11. Functional impact: The examiner recorded that the Veteran's foot condition impacts his ability to perform any occupational tasks. The examiner reported that the Veteran has pain with prolonged standing walking and cannot run/jog/hike/climb. Id. at 12. In his May 2019 Foot Conditions examination, the Veteran the diagnoses of plantar fasciitis of the right foot was confirmed. On medical history, the examiner recorded that the course of the Veteran's condition since onset as the same. The examiner recorded the Veteran's current symptoms as pain of the right foot with long walking/standing. See May 8, 2019 VA Foot Conditions examination, pgs., 1-3. The Veteran reported pain with activity. Flare-ups did not impact the function of the feet. Addressing functional loss or impairment, the examiner recorded that the Veteran reports pain with long standing/walking, needs to rest frequently. Id. at 4. The May 2019 VA examiner found pain on the use of the right foot. There was pain accentuated on use. There was no pain on manipulation of the bilateral feet. The examiner recorded that there was no indication of swelling on use, or characteristic callosities. Id. The examiner recorded that Veteran is currently using arch supports, built up shoes or orthotics, effecting relief of symptoms. The examiner recorded that the Veteran does have extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces on one or both feet (right foot). The Veteran did not have decreased longitudinal arch height of use of one or both feet on weight-bearing. There was no objective evidence of marked pronation or marked deformity of one or both feet. The weight-bearing line did not fall over or medial to the great toe. There was no lower extremity deformity other than pes planus causing alteration of the weight bearing line. There was no "inward" bowing of the Achilles' tendon (i.e., hindfoot valgus, with lateral deviation of the heel) of one or both feet. The Veteran did not have marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the Achilles' tendon (rigid hindfoot) on manipulation of one or both feet. Id. The examiner reported that there was no pain on physical examination. The examiner recorded the Veteran's report of pain, only with activity. The examiner recorded that the was no functional loss for the left or right lower extremity attributable to the Veteran's foot disability. Id. at 9. The examiner recorded that pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination did not significantly limit functional ability during flare-ups or when the right foot is used repeatedly over a period of time. Id. at 10. The examiner recorded that the Veteran does not use an assistive device for locomotion. Id. at 11. Functional impact: The examiner recorded that the Veteran's foot condition impacts his ability to perform any occupational tasks. The examiner reported that the Veteran unable to stand/walk for long. Cannot run/jog/jump hike-climb/walk on rough/uneven hard/concrete surface. Id. at 12. In a July 2019 Foot Conditions examination, the Veteran diagnosis of plantar fasciitis of the right foo was confirmed. See July 24, 2019 Foot Conditions Examination, pg. 2. On medical history, the examiner recorded that the course of the Veteran's foot condition since onset has stayed the same. Id. at 3. The examiner reported the Veteran's description of pain in his own words as "pain with prolonged use." Flare-ups did not impact the function of his feet. Functional loss or impairment described by the Veteran was that he could not walk/stand for long. The July 2019 VA examiner found pain on the use of both feet. There was no pain accentuated on use. There was no pain on manipulation of the feet. The examiner recorded that there was no indication of swelling on use, or characteristic callosities. Id. at 4. The examiner recorded that Veteran does not use arch supports, built up shoes or orthotics. Id. at pgs., 4-5. The examiner recorded that the Veteran does have extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces on one or both feet (right). The Veteran did not have decreased longitudinal arch height of use of both on weight-bearing. There was no objective evidence of marked pronation or marked deformity of one or both feet. The weight-bearing line did not fall over or medial to the great toe. There was no lower extremity deformity other than pes planus causing alteration of the weight bearing line. There was no "inward" bowing of the Achilles' tendon (i.e., hindfoot valgus, with lateral deviation of the heel) of one or both feet. The Veteran did not have marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the Achilles' tendon (rigid hindfoot) on manipulation of one or both feet. The examiner recorded that the Veteran did not have Morton's Neuroma. Id. at pgs. 5-6. The examiner recorded that the Veteran did not have any foot injuries or other foot conditions not already described. Id. at 8. The examiner recorded that there was no pain on physical examination. The examiner recorded that the Veteran reported pain with prolonged use. No functional loss was recorded for the left or right lower extremity attributable to claimed condition. Id. at 9. The examiner recorded that the Veteran uses a cane for foot pain. Id. at 11. Functional impact: The examiner recorded that the Veteran's foot condition impacts his ability to perform any occupational tasks. The examiner described that as being unable to stand and/walk for long. Cannot jog/jump/hike/climb. Cannot walk on rough/uneven surfaces. Id. at 12. In a September 2020 Foot Conditions Examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with flat foot (pes planus) of both feet, plantar fasciitis of the right foot and degenerative arthritis of the right foot. See September 22, 2020 Foot Conditions Examination, pg. 2. The examiner recorded that the Veteran reports continued pain in the right foot which has progressively gotten worse over the years and has become constant. The examiner recorded that the Veteran reports constant aching rated 8/10. He reports that walking/standing aggravates pain however he reports that pain is there even when he is not weightbearing. The Veteran does not report flare-ups. Id. at 4. Addressing functional loss for his right foot, the Veteran states that "I was a housekeeper at the VA which required a lot of walking. He reports that he was issued a cane and was told that he could not work as a housekeeper with a cane. He states that he had to retire." Id. at 5. The September 2020 VA examiner found pain on the use of both feet. There was pain accentuated on use. There was pain on manipulation of the bilateral feet. There was pain accentuated on manipulation the right foot. The examiner recorded that there was no indication of swelling on use, or characteristic callosities. Id. at pgs. 5-6. The examiner recorded that Veteran is currently using arch supports, built up shoes or orthotics but the Veteran remains symptomatic on the right foot. Id. at 6. The examiner recorded that the Veteran does not have extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces on one or both feet. The Veteran did have decreased longitudinal arch height of use of both feet on weight-bearing. There was no objective evidence of marked pronation or marked deformity of one or both feet. There was no evidence of marked pronation of one foot or both feet. The weight-bearing line did not fall over or medial to the great toe. There was no lower extremity deformity other than pes planus causing alteration of the weight bearing line. There was no "inward" bowing of the Achilles' tendon (i.e., hindfoot valgus, with lateral deviation of the heel) of one or both feet. The Veteran did not have marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the Achilles' tendon (rigid hindfoot) on manipulation of one or both feet. Id. Addressing functional loss and limitation of motion resulting from the Veteran foot disability, the examiner recorded that there was pain on weight-bearing, disturbance of locomotion and interference with standing relating to the right foot. Id. at 11. The examiner recorded that there was pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination that significantly limits functional ability during flare-ups or when the right foot is used repeatedly over a period of time and increased with prolonged weight bearing, not for the left foot. There was no other functional loss during flare-ups or when the foot is used repeatedly over a period of time. Id. at 12. The examiner recorded that the Veteran uses a cane for right foot plantar fasciitis. pain. Id. at 13. Functional impact: The examiner recorded that the Veteran's foot condition impacts his ability to perform any occupational tasks. The examiner reported that the Veteran is a retired housekeeper 0-1-week work time lost in last 12 months. Veteran has difficulty with standing/walking for prolonged periods. He was unable to continue to perform as a housekeeper. He is unable to perform yard work and other household chores as a result of right foot plantar fasciitis and right foot arthritis. No functional loss of pes planus. Id. at 14. Analysis Based on the foregoing, and affording the Veteran all reasonable doubt, with consideration of the Veteran's May 2020 lay statement regarding functional loss resulting from his right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis, the Board finds that a 20 percent rating, and no higher, is warranted for the period from February 13, 2019, the date of the VA Foot Conditions examination. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The Board notes that while the RO determined that there was objective evidence that Veteran's right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis increased in disability as depicted in the May 8, 2019 VA foot examination, the Board finds that there was objective evidence of an increase in disability that was factually ascertainable in the February 13, 2019 VA Foot examination; therefore, the Board finds that a 20 percent rating, and no higher, is warranted for the period from February 13, 2019 to May 8, 2019. Prior to this February 13, 2019 period, however, the medical record does not show that the Veteran experienced pain on use accentuated; pain accentuated on manipulation. Therefore, a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to this period is not warranted. Additionally, there is no objective evidence relevant to that time which shows marked deformity, indication of swelling in use, or characteristic callosities. In summary, the Board finds that for the period prior to February 13, 2019, the Veteran's right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis was manifested by pain on the use of both feet. It did not manifest in severe symptoms, and it did not result in any marked deformity, pain on manipulation and use accentuated, indication of swelling on use, or characteristic callosities. Beginning from the February 13, 2019 VA Foot Conditions examination, there is objective evidence of pain on use accentuated, pain accentuated on manipulation of the right foot. See February 13, 2019 Foot Conditions examination, pg. 4 (re: pain on use accentuated); See also September 2020 Foot Conditions examination, pgs. 5-6 (re: pain accentuated on manipulation). With this determination, the Board has also factored the Veteran's functional loss resulting from his right foot plantar fasciitis, recorded by the February 13, 2019 VA Foot Conditions examiner. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 43 (2011); See February 2019 VA Foot Conditions examination, pgs. 9-10. The Board notes that no other medical records indicate symptoms more severe than those reflected in the multiple VA examination reports discussed above. In sum, the Board finds that for the period from February 13, 2019, which encompasses the period from May 8, 2019, the Veteran's right foot plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis was manifested by pain on use accentuated; pain accentuated on manipulation; the Veteran's right foot (unilateral) plantar fasciitis with degenerative arthritis is not manifested by marked deformity of his foot, marked pronation, extreme tenderness, or severe spasm of the tendo achillis on manipulation. The Board also notes that a higher 50 percent rating cannot be assigned without bilateral involvement. Also, there is no evidence of marked deformity, no evidence of marked pronation, extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces of the feet, no inward bowing of the Achilles' tendon, and no marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the Achilles' tendon on manipulation, not improved by orthopedic shores or appliances to warrant a 30 percent rating for his right foot (unilateral) plantar fasciitis. See February 2019, May 2019, July 2019 and September 2020 VA Foot Conditions Examinations. As such, the weight of the evidence is against the assignment of a rating in excess of 20 percent from February 13, 2019, forward. The Board has considered whether the Veteran may be entitled to a higher rating under any other diagnostic code. Diagnostic Codes 5277, 5278, 5279, 5281, 5282 and 5283 however are not for application because the medical evidence does not indicate weak foot, claw foot, hallux rigidus, hammer toe, or malunion or nonunion of tarsal or metatarsal bones. The Veteran has not raised any other issues, and no other issues have been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant ... on appeal). REASON FOR REMAND Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). As referenced in the introduction of this decision, in January 2021, the Board remanded the matter for further development, including obtaining a completed VA Form 21-8940 (Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability). While the RO did provide notice as to how to substantiate this Veteran's TDIU claim, there is no completed form of record. See January 14, 2021 Subsequent Development Letter. In the April 2021 Appellate Post-Remand Brief, the Veteran's representative requested that the Veteran be given another opportunity to submit the VA Form 21-8940. See April 23, 2021 Appellant Post-Remand Brief, pg. 2. The Board will give the Veteran another opportunity to submit a completed VA Form 21-8940. The Veteran is advised that failure to submit a complete VA Form 21-8940 could result in a denial of the claim for entitlement a TDIU. See M21-1 IV.ii.2.F.4.k (deny entitlement to IU if the facts demonstrate that the Veteran has failed to cooperate with development, such as failing to return a completed VA Form 21-8940 when requested). The Board notes that the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the duty to assist is not a "one-way street." If the Veteran and his representative want help in developing this claim, they cannot passively wait for it in circumstances where they may or should have information that is essential in obtaining putative evidence. Woody. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991 Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran with another VA Form 21-8940 in connection with the claim for entitlement to TDIU and request that he supply the requisite information. Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Little, Associate Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.